SummaryThe first guidance on Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) dates back to 2005. This document expands this to include aspects of quality assurance for in vitro cell culture focusing on the increasingly diverse cell types and culture formats used in research, product development, testing and manufacture of biotechnology products and cell-based medicines. It provides a set of basic principles of best practice that can be used in training new personnel, reviewing and improving local procedures, and helping to assure standard practices and conditions for the comparison of data between laboratories and experimentation performed at different times. This includes recommendations for the documentation and reporting of culture conditions. It is intended as guidance to facilitate the generation of reliable data from cell culture systems, and is not intended to conflict with local or higher level legislation or regulatory requirements. It may not be possible to meet all recommendations in this guidance for practical, legal or other reasons. However, when it is necessary to divert from the principles of GCCP, the risk of decreasing the quality of work and the safety of laboratory staff should be addressed and any conclusions or alternative approaches justified. This workshop report is considered a first step toward a revised GCCP 2.0.
For nanotechnology to meet its potential as a game-changing and sustainable technology, it is important to ensure that the engineered nanomaterials and nanoenabled products that gain entry to the marketplace are safe and effective. Tools and methods are needed for regulatory purposes to allow rapid material categorization according to human health and environmental risk potential, so that materials of high concern can be targeted for additional scrutiny, while material categories that pose the least risk can receive expedited review. Using carbon nanotubes as an example, we discuss how data from alternative testing strategies can be used to facilitate engineered nanomaterial categorization according to risk potential and how such an approach could facilitate regulatory decision-making in the future.
Sensitization of the respiratory tract is an important occupational health challenge, and understanding the mechanistic basis of this effect is necessary to support the development of toxicological tools to detect chemicals that may cause it. Here we use the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework to organize information that may better inform our understanding of sensitization of the respiratory tract, building on a previously published skin sensitization AOP, relying on literature evidence linked to low-molecular-weight organic chemicals and excluding other known respiratory sensitizers acting via different molecular initiating events. The established key events (KEs) are as follows: (1) covalent binding of chemicals to proteins, (2) activation of cellular danger signals (inflammatory cytokines and chemokines and cytoprotective gene pathways), (3) dendritic cell activation and migration, (4) activation, proliferation, and polarization of T cells, and (5) sensitization of the respiratory tract. These events mirror the skin sensitization AOP but with specific differences. For example, there is some evidence that respiratory sensitizers bind preferentially to lysine moieties, whereas skin sensitizers bind to both cysteine and lysine. Furthermore, exposure to respiratory sensitizers seems to result in cell behavior for KEs 2 and 3, as well as the effector T cell response, in general skewing toward cytokine secretions predominantly associated with T helper 2 (Th2) response. Knowledge gaps include the lack of understanding of which KE(s) drive the Th2 polarization. The construction of this AOP may provide insight into predictive tests that would in combination support the discrimination of respiratory-sensitizing from non-and skin-sensitizing chemicals, a clear regulatory need.
Acute systemic toxicity testing provides the basis for hazard labeling and risk management of chemicals. A number of international efforts have been directed at identifying non-animal alternatives for in vivo acute systemic toxicity tests. A September 2015 workshop, Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing, reviewed the state-of-the-science of non-animal alternatives for this testing and explored ways to facilitate implementation of alternatives. Workshop attendees included representatives from international regulatory agencies, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Resources identified as necessary for meaningful progress in implementing alternatives included compiling and making available high-quality reference data, training on use and interpretation of in vitro and in silico approaches, and global harmonization of testing requirements. Attendees particularly noted the need to characterize variability in reference data to evaluate new approaches. They also noted the importance of understanding the mechanisms of acute toxicity, which could be facilitated by the development of adverse outcome pathways. Workshop breakout groups explored different approaches to reducing or replacing animal use for acute toxicity testing, with each group crafting a roadmap and strategy to accomplish near-term progress. The workshop steering committee has organized efforts to implement the recommendations of the workshop participants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.